FST-FA-17-5016797-S :: SUPERIOR COURT

JENNIFER DULOS :: J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK

V. :: AT STAMFORD

FOTIS DULOS :: AUGUST 29, 2019

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF GLORIA

FARBER, PENDENTE LITE

1. Mr. Dulos is the loving father of five children.

2. Mr. Dulos has not had contact with his children since May 22, 2019. In fact, this Court

made interim orders regarding his access without the benefit of a hearing based on a request

from the GAL, Michael Meehan.

3. The plaintiff has effectively had sole physical custody since January of 2018 until her

mother, Ms. Farber, obtained temporary custody in New Canaan Probate Court on June 10,

2019 after plaintiff’s disappearance on May 24, 2019. Such order has been appealed to the

Superior Court. Since this order was obtained, Ms. Farber has denied the children access to

their aunts, uncles, and godchild, a strategy supported by Jennifer’s lawyer, Rueben Midler, as

evidenced in recent emails from him to the GAL, Mr. Meehan.

4. Ms. Farber has intervened in this matter and has a pending motion for sole legal and

physical custody of the minor children (No. 527.00) which seeks to obtain the same result she

has achieved in the New Canaan Probate Court.

5. Mr. Dulos’s parental rights have not been terminated and he is presumed innocent of

all criminal charges currently pending against him. A motion to dismiss such charges is also

pending and awaiting adjudication.

6. Upon information and belief, Ms. Farber has previously been psychiatrically

hospitalized and had threatened to kill herself and her late husband. Electric shock therapy

was discussed as an option amongst the family, including Mr. Dulos. This troubling history

of mental illness needs to be assessed to ensure that the children can be safely cared for by Ms.

Farber. This evaluation can also assess Ms. Farber’s susceptibility to coercion by her

daughter’s lawyers concerning a continued strategy of complete and total war against Mr.

Dulos, the father of her grandchildren–a strategy that has previously only served Jennifer’s

lawyers and nobody else.

7. With regard to his psychological profile and fitness as a parent, Mr. Dulos stands on

the testimony of his therapist, Dr. Humphrey, who previously testified, and the detailed and

thorough report dated April 24, 2019 authored by Dr. Herman (Attorney Midler’s hand-

selected NYC based, board-certified psychiatrist), which Judge Heller has read. Her honor is

fully aware of its clear and succinct conclusions and recommendations. Once in receipt of

such report, Attorney Midler fought like a lion to prevent such report from coming into

evidence, for reasons that are axiomatic. He also sought the removal of the GAL to whom Ms.

Farber has paid tens of thousands of dollars for similar reasons.

8. Ms. Farber is paying her commercial lawyers to make scurrilous remarks about Mr.

Dulos in unrelated civil pleadings wherein she is a plaintiff, notwithstanding the fact that her

lawyer has averred that she lacks any knowledge about the details of the underlying case. This

is unsurprising in that she was previously funding Plaintiff’s lawyer, Rueben Midler, to the

tune of $69,000 per month in legal fees (pro-rated for over 18 months for approximately

$1,650,000 in legal fees to two law firms) to fight Mr. Dulos, in addition to nearly an additional
$107,000 in monthly payments made on behalf of Jennifer. This pathology should also be

explored in the course of the evaluation and its potential impact on the children.

9. Under Connecticut law “[i]t is well established that the court may require the parties

and the child to undergo a psychiatric or psychological evaluation for the purpose of properly

disposing of a family matter, in a modification of custody case, to assist in determining the

best interest of the child. See General Statutes §§ 46b-3 and 46b-6; Pascal v. Pascal, 2 Conn.

App. 472, 478-79, 481 A.2d 68 (1984); Foster v. Foster, 84 Conn. App. 311, 323, 853 A.2d

588 (2004).

10. General Statutes § 46b-3 states, in relevant part, “[f]or the purposes of any investigation

or pretrial conference the judge presiding at any family relations session may employ the

services of any probation officer, including those under the direction of the Office of Adult

Probation, physician, psychologist, psychiatrist or family counselor.”

11. General Statutes § 46b-6 further provides that “[i]n any pending family relations matter

the court or any judge may cause an investigation to be made with respect to any circumstance

of the matter which may be helpful or material or relevant to a proper disposition of the case.

Such investigation may include an examination of the parentage and surroundings of any

child… habits and character of his parents or guardians and evaluation of his mental or physical

condition.”

12. In any controversy involving the custody or care of a minor child(ren), the Superior

Court shall consider the best interests of the child(ren). See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56.

13. Determining the best interests of the children includes, but is not limited to considering
the following factors:
a. “[T]he capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the
needs of the child.” General Statutes § 46b-56(c)(2);
 b. “[T]he willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such
continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is
appropriate, including compliance with any court orders.” § 46b-56(c)(6);
c. “[A]ny manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve
the child in the parents’ dispute.” § 46b-56(c)(7); and
d. “[T]he mental and physical health of all individuals involved…” § 46b-56(c)(6)
14. Significantly, “[t]he well-being of the child rather than the punishment or reward of the
parent ought to guide every custody case . . .” Reza v. Leyasi, 95 Conn. App. 562, 568,
897 A.2d 679 (2006).
15. The Connecticut Appellate Court has recognized that, “[a] court-ordered psychological
evaluation of a parent will often be necessary to determine the best interest of the child.”
Janik v. Janik, 61 Conn. App. 175, 182, 763 A.2d 65 (2000).
16. The instant matter has been fraught with conflict and emotionally charged allegations,
which have created a complex case history and, sadly, prevented the Defendant from
seeing his minor children, without merit.
17. A court-ordered psychological evaluation of Ms. Farber would be in the minor children’s
best interest as it would provide this Court with relevant and material information that is
critical to making a comprehensive and well-informed inquiry into the minor children’s
present best interests regarding their care and custody.
18. Mr. Dulos wants this fight to end. Sacrificing the children in this hellish conflict is
wrong. But Ms. Farber has left Mr. Dulos with no choice but to press on with the hope
that he can soon be reunited with his children.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Enter an order appointing a psychologist to conduct a psychological evaluation of Ms.

Farber and to report the findings to this Court.
2. Enter an order that Ms. Farber sign releases for the GAL and the court-appointed
evaluator to have access to current and past psychiatric records.
3. Order Ms. Farber partake in a psychological evaluation by such appointed psychologist,
as ordered.
DEFENDANT:

By:_/s/ 418682 Rich Rochlin___

Richard Rochlin
Rich Rochlin Law Group
10 North Main Street
Suite 304
West Hartford, CT 06107
V: 860-357-5003
F: 860-218-9659
rich@richrochlinlaw.com
 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 10-12 through 10-17, inclusive, the undersigned
certifies that a copy of the foregoing motion was mailed, postage pre-paid, via USPS First Class
Mail, and/or electronically delivered, via electronic mail or facsimile, on AUGUST 29, 2019 to
all counsel and self-represented parties of record, and that written consent for electronic delivery
was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were electronically
served:

Rubin Midler, Esq.

Effron Wayne D. PC
PO Box 5237
Greenwich, CT 06831
FAX: 203-622-4004

Meehan Law
76 Lyon Terrace
Bridgeport, CT 06604
FAX: 203-331-0107

Pullman & Comley

90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103
FAX: 860-424-4370

Norm Pattis (via email)

_____/s/ 418682 Rich Rochlin______________________